Dataset Information

Considering health and health disparities during state policy formulation: examining Washington state Health Impact Reviews.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:As part of efforts to expand Health in All Policies (HiAP) in Washington State in the U.S., the Washington State Board of Health (BOH) received statutory authority in 2006 to conduct Health Impact Reviews (HIRs). HIRs analyze the potential impacts of proposed legislation and budget decisions on health and health disparities. Public health professionals who are aware of HIRs are interested in adopting a similar process in their states; however, there is limited information about HIRs, how they are perceived, and how they could advance HiAP. METHODS:This research involved a descriptive analysis of a sample of HIRs and semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 17 key informants. For the descriptive analysis, all HIRs requested or completed between January 1, 2007 and April 1, 2016 that had a request form submitted by a legislator or the governor that was available in the BOH's online database were reviewed. Information was collected on several variables including the bill number and title, sponsor and political affiliation, and the sector to which the bill or budgetary proposal pertained. A purposeful sample of legislators, staff, advocates, and lobbyists who were involved with HIRs during the study period were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Topic coding was used to identify key themes from the qualitative data. RESULTS:During the study period, 20 legislators requested 36 HIRs; 32 HIRs were completed. HIRs were requested for several bill topics, including education (11/36) and labor and employment (9/36). Legislators who requested HIRs felt they provided valuable data on health and health disparities for proposed bills. Individuals who were less supportive of HIRs perceived them as an advocacy or political tool. The main barrier to widespread use of HIRs in Washington was a lack of awareness among legislators. CONCLUSIONS:HIRs are one strategy to advance HiAP for state policy decisions. HIRs are a potentially effective tool for highlighting how legislative proposals and budgets positively and negatively impact health and health disparities. Future efforts should promote awareness and highlight shared benefits of HIRs among legislators and their staff, as well as their scientific integrity, methodological rigor, and objectivity.

SUBMITTER: Pollack Porter KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6610847 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Considering health and health disparities during state policy formulation: examining Washington state Health Impact Reviews.

Pollack Porter Keshia M KM Lindberg Ruth R McInnis-Simoncelli Arielle A

BMC public health 20190703 1

<h4>Background</h4>As part of efforts to expand Health in All Policies (HiAP) in Washington State in the U.S., the Washington State Board of Health (BOH) received statutory authority in 2006 to conduct Health Impact Reviews (HIRs). HIRs analyze the potential impacts of proposed legislation and budget decisions on health and health disparities. Public health professionals who are aware of HIRs are interested in adopting a similar process in their states; however, there is limited information abou ...[more]

PMID: 31269934

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo test associations between several opioid prescribing policy interventions and changes in early (acute/subacute) high-risk opioid prescribing practices.Data sourcesPopulation-based workers' compensation pharmacy billing and claims data, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (January 2008-June 2015).Study designWe used interrupted time series analysis to test associations between three policy intervention timepoints and monthly proportions of population-based measures of high-risk, low-risk, and any workers' compensation-related opioid prescribing. We also tested associations between the policy intervention timepoints and five high-risk opioid prescribing indicators among workers prescribed any opioids within 3 months after injury: (a) >7 cumulative (not necessarily consecutive) days' supply of opioids during the acute phase, (b) high-dose opioids, (c) concurrent sedatives, (d) chronic opioids, and (e) a composite high-risk opioid prescribing indicator.Principal findingsWithin 3 months after injury, 9 percent of workers were exposed to high-risk and 12 percent to low-risk workers' compensation-related opioid prescribing; 79 percent filled no workers' compensation-related opioid prescription. Among workers prescribed any early (acute/subacute) opioids, the indicator for >7 days' supply of opioids during the acute phase was present for 30 percent, high-dose opioids for 18 percent, concurrent sedatives for 3 percent, and chronic opioids for 2 percent. Beyond a general shift toward more infrequent and lower-risk workers' compensation-related opioid prescribing, each policy intervention timepoint was significantly associated with reductions in specific acute/subacute high-risk opioid prescribing indicators; each of the four specific high-risk opioid prescribing indicators had significant reductions associated with at least one policy.ConclusionsSeveral state-level opioid prescribing policies were significantly associated with safer workers' compensation-related opioid prescribing practices during the first 3 months after injury (acute/subacute phase), which should in turn reduce transition to chronic opioids and associated negative health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundCoeliac disease affects approximately 1% of the population and is increasingly diagnosed in the United Kingdom. A nationwide consultation in England has recommend that state-funded provisions for gluten-free (GF) food should be restricted to bread and mixes but not banned, yet financial strain has prompted regions of England to begin partially or fully ceasing access to these provisions. The impact of these policy changes on different stakeholders remains unclear.MethodsPrescription data were collected for general practice services across England (n = 7176) to explore changes in National Health Service (NHS) expenditure on GF foods over time (2012-2017). The effects of sex, age, deprivation and rurality on GF product expenditure were estimated using a multi-level gamma regression model. Spending rate within NHS regions that had introduced a 'complete ban' or a 'complete ban with age-related exceptions' was compared to spending in the same time periods amongst NHS regions which continued to fund prescriptions for GF products.ResultsAnnual expenditure on GF products in 2012 (before bans were introduced in any area) was £25.1 million. Higher levels of GF product expenditure were found in general practices in areas with lower levels of deprivation, higher levels of rurality and higher proportions of patients aged under 18 and over 75. Expenditure on GF food within localities that introduced a 'complete ban' or a 'complete ban with age-related exceptions' were reduced by approximately 80% within the 3 months following policy changes. If all regions had introduced a 'complete ban' policy in 2014, the NHS in England would have made an annual cost-saving of £21.1 million (equivalent to 0.24% of the total primary care medicines expenditure), assuming no negative sequelae.ConclusionsThe introduction of more restrictive GF prescribing policies has been associated with 'quick wins' for NHS regions under extreme financial pressure. However, these initial savings will be largely negated if GF product policies revert to recently published national recommendations. Better evidence of the long-term impact of restricting GF prescribing on patient health, expenses and use of NHS services is needed to inform policy.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of research evidence as an input for health decision-making is a need for most health systems. There are a number of approaches for promoting evidence use at different levels of the health system, but knowledge of their effectiveness is still scarce. The objective of this overview was to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge communication and dissemination interventions, strategies or approaches targeting policy-makers and health managers.MethodsThis overview of systematic reviews used systematic review methods and was conducted according to a predefined and published protocol. A comprehensive electronic search of 13 databases and a manual search in four websites were conducted. Both published and unpublished reviews in English, Spanish or Portuguese were included. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, and effectiveness statements were developed, informed by the evidence identified.ResultsWe included 27 systematic reviews. Three studies included only a communication strategy, while eight only included dissemination strategies, and the remaining 16 included both. None of the selected reviews provided "sufficient evidence" for any of the strategies, while four provided some evidence for three communication and four dissemination strategies. Regarding communication strategies, the use of tailored and targeted messages seemed to successfully lead to changes in the decision-making practices of the target audience. Regarding dissemination strategies, interventions that aimed at improving only the reach of evidence did not have an impact on its use in decisions, while interventions aimed at enhancing users' ability to use and apply evidence had a positive effect on decision-making processes. Multifaceted dissemination strategies also demonstrated the potential for changing knowledge about evidence but not its implementation in decision-making.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions targeting health managers and policy-makers, as well as the mechanisms required for achieving impact. More studies are needed that are informed by theoretical frameworks or specific tools and using robust methods, standardized outcome measures and clear descriptions of the interventions. We found that passive communication increased access to evidence but had no effect on uptake. Some evidence indicated that the use of targeted messages, knowledge-brokering and user training was effective in promoting evidence use by managers and policy-makers.

Dataset Information

Considering health and health disparities during state policy formulation: examining Washington state Health Impact Reviews.

Publications

Considering health and health disparities during state policy formulation: examining Washington state Health Impact Reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets